Skip to main content

Security report for strix.com

Other · N/a

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

The website strix.com is currently inaccessible beyond a security challenge page that performs browser integrity checks and automatic redirects. The page content is minimal and primarily serves as a gatekeeper, indicating the presence of a Web Application Firewall or similar security mechanism, likely BitNinja. The visible metadata reveals the use of outdated CMS platforms Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, which are known to have multiple security vulnerabilities. No business, contact, or privacy-related information is available on the page, severely limiting the ability to assess the company's market position or compliance posture. The overall digital maturity appears low, with poor content quality and minimal SEO or accessibility features.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of strix.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.

GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.

Priority findings

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  2. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. Security headers

    Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.

    • High

      Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching strix.com

This scan found 21 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. See sample alerts.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
0
Security headers
20
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
49

Not counted

  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Due to the blocked content and lack of visible business information, no reliable insights into market positioning, business model, or partnerships can be derived. The presence of multiple commented links referencing Joomla components and demo files suggests the site may be under development or improperly maintained. The external link to bitninja.io indicates reliance on third-party security services but does not clarify business relationships. No revenue streams, target customer segments, or growth indicators are discernible from the available data.

Security posture

The site employs a security challenge mechanism to protect against automated access, which is a positive security control. However, the use of outdated CMS versions poses significant risk of exploitation. No security headers or HTTPS status could be confirmed from the provided data. The absence of privacy policies and contact information indicates poor compliance with data protection regulations such as GDPR. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not evident. Overall, the security posture is weak beyond the initial WAF protection, with critical improvements needed in CMS updates, policy transparency, and secure configuration.

Recommendations

  1. Upgrade Joomla and WordPress installations to the latest supported versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  2. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to ensure GDPR compliance.
  3. Add visible contact information and business details to improve trust and credibility.
  4. Configure and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  5. Conduct a full security audit to identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities beyond the WAF.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security challenge page with automatic redirect and browser integrity check, indicating WAF or security protection blocking direct access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript
Frameworks
Joomla! 1.5, WordPress 2.5
Performance
slow
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • browser integrity check script
  • automatic redirect with countdown

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked behind a security challenge page.
  2. Page uses outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) indicated in meta tags.
  3. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No contact information or business details available on the page.
  5. External link to bitninja.io indicates use of BitNinja security service.
  6. Page includes JavaScript-based browser integrity checks and automatic form submission for redirect.
  7. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  8. No social media or email contact information found.
  9. Page title contains typo 'redirectiron' indicating low content quality or placeholder.
  10. Multiple commented links referencing various Joomla components and demo files, possibly leftover or test content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS platforms Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, which are outdated and unsupported. The page includes JavaScript for browser integrity checks and automatic form submission to redirect users, indicating a security challenge mechanism likely provided by BitNinja. The HTML structure is minimal with inline CSS for a loading animation. No modern JavaScript frameworks or analytics tools are detected. The site lacks SEO optimization and accessibility features. Performance is likely slow due to the blocking mechanism and outdated technology stack. Hosting provider details are not available from the provided data.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 49/100High30 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with strix.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review strix.com.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.